With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:56:13 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »

Logged

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead. Secondly, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome. If you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 03:48:25 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part

Are you saying Tertullian wasn't teaching heresy?

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 03:50:06 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »

Logged

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.

And Cyprian lost out in the dispute. Further i can provide a lot of quotes showing the western view of the pope but it will juat be diamissed as flowery language so let me nit waste my time

Quote

, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.

Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

Quote

if you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.

Is this seriously orthodoxy's best argument? To dismiss all evidence as flowey language despite the consistency of the claims made by fathers who never even met each other. Fathers from both the east and the west?

Intellectual dishonesty

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part

Are you saying Tertullian wasn't teaching heresy?

I'm saying St Augustine didn't

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

"After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the priesthood [sacerdotal unity] took its rise [or has its source]. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief [or error, heresy, perversion of faith] cannot have access. "(Epistle 59:14; Giles, page 60)

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 04:04:24 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.

Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

You know, at one point St. Maximus was imprisoned and his prosecutors were asking him what he was going to do if, when the legates from Rome arrived the next day, they would commune with the (monothelite) Patriarch of Constantinople. He didn't say he would stay in communion with the "Vicar of Christ" no matter what. Quite the contrary. It's in the transcriptions of his trials published here. For him Orthodoxy was above papal supremacy and infallibility.

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.

if you are going to throw a bunch of flowery superlative "proof" texts of the Fathers my way to counter this argument, please save yourself some time and read the link provided by Cyrillic about Asianism first.

Is this seriously orthodoxy's best argument? To dismiss all evidence as flowey language despite the consistency of the claims made by fathers who never even met each other. Fathers from both the east and the west?

Intellectual dishonesty

Many of the Fathers were influenced by a certain literary movement called the Second Sophistic. It promoted, among other things, over-the-top language in eulogies - i.e. Asianism.

The adherents of that movement composed, for example, speeches praising nonsensical things in the most ridiculous superlatives. Some of them are even extant, such as the Praise of the Fruit Fly. If those influenced by the Second Sophistic eloquently praised fruit flies what makes you think that they couldn't exaggerate a little bit in praising a bishop here and there?

, no one of any significance in the East ever believed in the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome.

Tell that to others like Maximus the confessor.

You know, at one point St. Maximus was imprisoned and his prosecutors were asking him what he was going to do if, when the legates from Rome arrived the next day, they would commune with the (monothelite) Patriarch of Constantinople. He didn't say he would stay in communion with the "Vicar of Christ" no matter what. Quite the contrary. It's in the transcriptions of his trials published here.

Oh I know. Hypothetical situation based on a lie they told him is not much evidence as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

And you know he said if you excommunication the roman church and anyone with it, you excommunication in fact, the Catholic Church?

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Lol neither does Catholicism but alas Christ did have a head apostle (Today the euqal position would be a head bishop). For Christ set one to be his vicar. A visible head, a visible high priest. Or else your argument can extend to diocesan level and thus disqualify priesthood

In Orthodoxy, every bishop is high-priest (archiereus). The High Priest (kohen hagadol/ho megas archiereus) is Christ Himself forever.

So yet with all the evidence of Rome being head church and its bishop being head and in light of this information you just shared with me... Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

I'll just repeat what I said. If the Pope of Rome has the authority to change and innovate in matters of doctrine, Catholicism is true. Even if his innovations go against the historic teaching of the Church and of Judaism.

Umm What Catholicism do you know? The Pope can neither change nor innovate doctrine. He can't go against tradition and is subject to it. This argument is a straw man

It's not a straw man. That's what the Catholic Church did. That's what Vicarious Atonement is, that's what Purgatory is. That's not Orthodox doctrine. Jews don't buy it either.

Those doctrines have been taught long before the schism and are part of the western tradition. Or now is it the case that anything that conflicts the east is heresy?

The Jews have changed a lot of what they believe. Once upon a time they believed in demons,hell and a God man messiah. They aren't so reliable

No those doctrines were not taught before the schism. The council of Lyon was after the schism, as was Anselm of Canterbury.

Is St Augustine post schism?

Like Tertullian, St. Augustine taught heresy. And not even St. Augustine believed in Purgatory or the Vicarious Atonement theory. Maybe he used similar language, but he didn't define it.

LOL ok if that's what you have to tell yourself. This discussion lost all intellectual credibility with that whole "like Tertullian..." part

Are you saying Tertullian wasn't teaching heresy?

I'm saying St Augustine didn't

I say, you say. How about demonstrating St. Augustine's supposed teaching of Purgatory and Vicarious Atonement?

Logged

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy?

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith".

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

That doesn't even adress my statement.

let me make this simple.. Does Orthodoxy teach rebaptism?

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

...as the situation assumed Rome fell into the monothelite heresy. As such and accordingly he wouldn't follow Rome into heresy.

But according to current Roman Catholic belief, which you say goes back to Christ and the Apostles, how could it be possible for Rome to fall into heresy?

It may have been a "hypothetical" question posed to Maximus, but his "hypothetical" answer doesn't seem to have included any notion of "But that's impossible, Rome will never lose the faith".

it being hypothetical is important because it assumed Rome HAD fallen into heresy against its own decree at the synod of Rome. So he knew monothelitism was wrong and anybody who accepted it was wrong.

However, in reality he viewed Rome this way:

Quote

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world".

But again, you're not addressing my point.

If Maximus said all of the above and sincerely believed it (e.g., it wasn't simply a matter of him being influenced by the Second Sophistic), why on earth would he ever accept as a hypothetical that Rome could fall into heresy? You claim the hypothetical question presumes that Rome did fall, but his answer is not that Rome is incapable of falling because of Christ's promise to Peter or any such Vatican I-esque teaching. He doesn't respond back "What a stupid question! As if Rome could ever fall from the faith! Moron!!" Why not?

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

.... In the west, the universal jurisdiction and supremacy if the Pope was virtually unquestioned. Where as in the east, it Ws a lot more complicated. There were some who believes in the primacy of honour alone ( majority) and some who believed as those in the west did.

Absolute nonsense, on two counts. First of all, St. Cyprian of Carthage, whom you are so fond of quoting, once told the Bishop of Rome in no uncertain terms to keep out of a local North African dispute. There are other early examples of Western churches not following Rome's lead.

As Augustine recounts the tale of Cyprian and heretical baptism, he points out how Cyprian later submitted to the authority of the Church:"Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?' Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep." (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)

That doesn't even adress my statement.

let me make this simple.. Does Orthodoxy teach rebaptism?

No, and neither did St. Cyprian.

Neither did Pope Stephen. He did teach however that baptism of certain heretics were valid. Cyprian said all heretical baptisms are invalid. Cyprian was clearly wrong on this and other councils prove this in sections that deal with how to accept certain heretics. I'll try get the specific canons

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Here is something from Orthodox Wiki on the Councils of Carthage from the third through the fifth centuries. Fascinating stuff, really. Here was a much-revered Church that was decidedly Western but certainly not Roman. I wonder if things would have turned out differently for all concerned if the African Church had not been wiped off the face of the earth?

Here is something from Orthodox Wiki on the Councils of Carthage from the third through the fifth centuries. Fascinating stuff, really. Here was a much-revered Church that was decidedly Western but certainly not Roman. I wonder if things would have turned out differently for all concerned if the African Church had not been wiped off the face of the earth?

Cyprian was clearly wrong on this and other councils prove this in sections that deal with how to accept certain heretics. I'll try get the specific canons

Please do.

canon VII of Constantinople (381)

Quote

Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians...and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive...they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians...and Montanists...and Sabellians...all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.

And according to St Cyprian, where is sacerdotal unity maintained and have its source?

In St. Peter, the type of whom, according to Pope St. Leo in his fourth sermon, is proposed to all pastors of the Church.

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Nice try, but the verb operating in that clause, exorta est, is in the perfect/preterite, not the present (the present tense would read unde unitas sacerdotalis exoritur). It is probably best translated as, "the principal church where sacerdotal unity originated," (using the perfect, "has originated," here instead of the preterite makes very little sense grammatically in English).

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

The fact that the views of Pope Stephen I on the re-baptism of heretics came to be given credence in the Church is really a red herring when it comes to my argument. My point, one that you cannot deny, is that the entire African episcopate bitterly resented the pope's assumption that he had the right to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of the African Church.

Why is it hard to fathom a head of the Church? One who is vicar of the eternal head, Christ?

Because Christ does not need a Vicar

Then why make Peter head?

So that the sacerdotal power of the Church flowed first from Christ to St. Peter, and then to the apostles, that the unity of the Church and the episcopacy is preserved in the type of Peter, who is made manifest to all pastors of the Church.

And according to St Cyprian, where is sacerdotal unity maintained and have its source?

In St. Peter, the type of whom, according to Pope St. Leo in his fourth sermon, is proposed to all pastors of the Church.

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Nice try, but the verb operating in that clause, exorta est, is in the perfect/preterite, not the present (the present tense would read unde unitas sacerdotalis exoritur). It is probably best translated as, "the principal church where sacerdotal unity originated," (using the perfect, "has originated," here instead of the preterite makes very little sense grammatically in English).

I've said the same thing above (reply 100) with fewer words but I was ignored. Perhaps you'll have better luck.